This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia articles
A forthcoming special issue of Neuropsychology Review will be devoted to ASD. It looks like it will have multiple useful sources for Autism. I'm putting in a notice here to help remind us to take a look at it when it comes out. Here's the intro (the rest of it isn't published yet): Baron IS (2008). "Autism Spectrum Disorder: complex, controversial, and confounding". Neuropsychol Rev. doi:10.1007/s11065-008-9070-1. PMID18846426. Eubulides (talk) 16:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there an active WikiProject about autism?
I have just finished writing an article about Denise Phua, a Singaporean politician dedicated to helping the special needs (especially autistic) community in Singapore. The article is currently on peer review in preparation for a GAnomination. Is there an active WikiProject about autism, which I can approach to request peer reviewers? I looked around but could not find any. If no such WikiProject exists, consider creating one. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As this talk page's header indicates, Autism is currently under the scope of 5 WikiProjects: Psychology, Medicine, Medical Genetics, Neuroscience, and Neurology. If you are interested in starting an autism wikiproject, I suggest starting a discussion on the most-likely talk page among these projects, and seeing how much interest and help you can get. A wikiproject for autism was proposed in June, and had been proposed earlier too, but has not yet gotten much support. (It's not enough just to have a wikiproject page, of course; you also need editors who actively contribute to the wikiproject.) You might also check into Wikipedia:Notice board for autism-related topics, a page that used to be active but is now somewhat moribund. Eubulides (talk) 17:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would just like to point out that of the four users listed under the heading Active contributors on autism-related topics, only one of them seems to be still actively editing any autism-related pages. Two of the others are still active users and one of them has left probably for good. The list also excludes all of the people who are the most prolific contributors on autism-related articles. SoapTalk/Contributions18:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The five WikiProjects seem to focus on the medical and neurological aspects of autism, rather than the sociological and cultural aspects. Would these WikiProjects be interested in peer reviewing an article about a Singaporean politician dedicated to helping the local special needs community? If so, I will go ahead and canvass advertise the peer review at the talk pages of those WikiProjects.
If there is no WikiProject Autism, one should certainly be created. It would have great potential to help fight systemic bias by encouraging collaboration on autism-related articles. While autistics tend to be technically inclined, their poor social and communication skills may get them into trouble when editing - a WikiProject Autism may help them in those aspects. Unfortunately, I am unlikely to create or join such a WikiProject, as I only work on Singapore-related articles; there is very little overlap between Singapore-related articles and autism-related articles.
Regardless of whether a WikiProject Autism exists, Wikipedians who are interested in autism-related topics (such as those replying to this thread) are invited to participate in the peer review of Denise Phua. By pointing out issues which can be addressed, you will help the article attain GA status. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 09:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The definition of Autism
Recently I read in my local newspaper about the expanding of the definition of Autism. They said it now includes anything that may just be a habit or phobia that is similar to "Autism's" traits. Isn't that essentially saying that Autism isn't real and they don't know what else to call it?
Autism, a neurolgical developmental condition, it is more common in males, it occurs usually in infancy. It can be diagnosed with symptoms effecting three behavioral domains, social delelopment, communication, and repetitive behavior. Language delays are also common in children with autism spectrum disorder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.4.9.214 (talk) 22:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As per WP:MEDRS #Popular press, newspapers are unreliable sources for medical facts and figures. But saying autism "may be just a habit" is pretty far out; perhaps you misunderstood the newspaper, or perhaps the newspaper is even less reliable than is usual for newspapers. Eubulides (talk) 04:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The other issue is that autism is a condition defined by a series of symptoms. People know what causes certain types of autism but for the most part it is a bundle of symptoms that appear to have common traits. By the way- it isn't a casual connection - there are LOTS of related traits. SO people are struggling how to classify these symptom groups more and more precisely so proper medical and social intervention can be put in place to deal with it. Alex Jackl (talk) 15:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perseveration
I think the phrases "Restricted Behavior" should be replaced with "perseveration" which is the word most often used in professional circles. "restricted behavior" seems to be a muddy area between "perseveration" and "ritualistic" and "sameness" which are in fact three different behaviors. Smibbo (talk) 05:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DSM-IV-TR doesn't say "perseveration"; it says "restricted repetitive and stereotyped patterns of behavior, interests, and activities".[1] What reliable source says "perseveration"? Eubulides (talk) 06:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rain and TV watching
I just heard that rain might be a cause to autism. They said children who live in places with more precipitation are more likely to have autism. According to WTAE news, children who live in a region with more precipitation are more likely to stay indoors. This may cause them to be in contact with more television accessibility as well as cleaning products.Laluff (talk) 02:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)laluff[reply]
Although we want people to understand vocabulary there is links to the following articles to explain. It doesn't make sense that the article explains that is a brain development disorder linking to nerodevelopmental disorder. Their isn't even a reference footnote to it. I looked through the reference list and on the sixth reference -- the scientific journal says that it is a nerodevelopmental disorder, which would be more accurate (e.g. Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder is refered to as a being a neurobehavioral developmental disorder not a behavior development disorder). I wanted to see other people's opinion before changing the vocabulary and to add the reference tag. Here is the URL for the reference footnote -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autism#References. It's the sixth one down. Thanx! ATC(talk)20:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The question is, should Autism use jargon that is standard in medicine, or (as per WP:MEDMOS #Audience) substitute less commonly-used but more-understandable phrases? "Neurodevelopmental disorder" is the normal and accepted medical term, but it is also a phrase that most readers won't know. A few reliable sources do use the phrase "brain development disorder" to describe autism, for example: Honey K (2008). "Attention focuses on autism". J Clin Invest. 118 (5): 1586–7. doi:10.1172/JCI35821. PMC2336894. PMID18451989. It is true, though, that "neurodevelopmental disorder" is far more common, so there is a judgment call here as to whether it should be preferred to "brain development disorder".
I am finishing an RN program, and one of my instructors mentioned that some authorities are now questioning if lack of vitamin D plays a role in raising the risk for autism. Vitamin D can be taken orally or it senthisized in the body from exposure to sunlight. Apparently autism is almost nonexsistent in Africa where people have lots of exposure to the sun. Also in the USA it is supposed to be more prevalent in northern states than in the south, where again, there is more exposure to the sun. Unfortunatly I have no references, but maybe someone more attuned to Wikipedia would like to investigate this as it is a very important issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnhenney (talk • contribs) 17:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The vitamin D hypothesis is untested, and there is no scientific evidence about it; at this point it's merely a guess and its coverage in Causes of autism is more than adequate.
The prevalence of autism in Africa has not been studied and is unknown; see Mankoski et al. 2006 (PMID 16897390). I expect that Johnhenney's instructor, or the instructor's source, just made up the part about Africa. Anyway, thanks for bringing it up: I added a new subsubsection Epidemiology of autism #Africa on that topic. Eubulides (talk) 18:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's something being studied about Somali refugees though, isn't there? I heard the incidence rates with them were nearly 1 in 4 (totally pulled out of my @r$e). Granted, there are almost definitely other variables at work, but that still means that it's not necessarily an "non-Africa" thing. 74.46.203.165 (talk) 19:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've heard of anecodotal reports of a higher rate of autism among Somali refugees in other countries, but no scientific evidence, and nothing yet published in a peer-reviewed journal or similar reliable source. Eubulides (talk) 20:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect white people in America have healthier Vit D levels than blacks in Africa. Reasons: 1) The American Southwest gets as much sunlight as most of Africa does; Australia gets quite a bit more. That Africa is the hottest, sunniest, or driest continent is nothing but a common misconception. 2) Most Africans have dark skin, which blocks out sunlight and therefore slows down production of vitamin D. 3) Even in the poorest areas of the world, most people spend most of their day indoors and wearing clothes, thus reducing sunlight exposure to a level much below what humans originally evolved for. 4) To make up any deficiencies that do exist, us rich Westerners eat vitamin D supplements in our food almost every day whether we realize it or not; I'd be willing to bet most Africans don't get those vitamin supplements. SoapTalk/Contributions22:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Di Martino A, Ross K, Uddin LQ, Sklar AB, Castellanos FX, Milham MP (2008). "Functional brain correlates of social and nonsocial processes in autism spectrum disorders: an activation likelihood estimation meta-analysis". Biol Psychiatry. doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2008.09.022. PMID18996505.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
I read in my encyclopaedia that people who have autism are generally "physically attractive." Was there some study or something back then (1970s) which lead doctors/psychologists to make such a subjective conclusion? HomerChimpson (talk) 02:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's real; it's Hans Asperger's wording. However, most people now believe that he was making a comparison to other syndromes such as Down's, Apert's syndrome, etc., the majority of which involve some sort of physical deformity. SoapTalk/Contributions11:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can find a source for this in Uta Frith's book Autism and Asperger Syndrome, which mentions it three times since it is a compilation of essays by different researchers. The book also includes Asperger's original paper, translated into English, and apparently still the only available English translation of the paper anywhere. I used to have the book but I don't have access to it right now; I searched the book in Google Books for "attractive appearance" and I found it on page 10, but that doesn't give the context I remember, which seemed to imply that Asperger was saying that children with AS are attractive by comparison to the other kinds of kids that turned up at mental institutions, not to the general population as a whole. SoapTalk/Contributions19:44, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Researchers at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia reported in 2008 that comparisons of real-time magnetoencephalograms of normal and autistic children have shown that autistic individuals respond to sounds about 20 milliseconds slower, making it more difficult for them to process syllables in continuous speech.[1]"
Thanks for bringing this to our attention. However, there are some problems with the edit:
The study has not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal.
As the cited source makes clear, the study's results, although promising, are preliminary.
As per WP:MEDRS, for medical facts and figures like this it's better to use secondary sources such as reliable reviews, as is true for almost all the other sources used in that section.
All things considered I think in this particular area it's better to cite a reliable review rather than a news article about a primary study that hasn't been published in the literature. I looked for such a review, and found one directly on point: Roberts et al. 2008 (PMID 18336941), a recently published reliable review by the same group at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. The review is not quite as up-to-date as the CBS news article, but it's considerably more reliable, which is better for an encyclopedia. I also suggest moving this point from Autism #Communication (which talks about symptoms) to Autism #Pathophysiology (which talks about mechanism, a better location for this particular point). I plan to draft a change along these lines, once I have time to read Roberts et al.
Anyway, the bottom line is: thanks again for bringing this news item for our attention, and we'll use a review to improve the topic's coverage further. Eubulides (talk) 22:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm disappointed to see what has been done to my contribution. As originally written, it said something. Now, as edited, it says nothing. In toto, the Autism article reads like a dreary excerpt from a technical journal, not an encyclopedia entry. As a career electrical engineer, I tend to avoid reading Transactions of the IEEE for that reason, as such arcane writings only seem to satisfy someone's academic "publish-or-perish" requirements, not the needs of the average Joe. —QuicksilverT@08:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the original text was not supported by a source that is reliable according to WP:MEDRS guidelines. For Wikipedia purposes it's better to have boring and reliable text than interesting and unreliable. Better yet, of course, would be both sprightly wording and reliable sources; specific suggestions for improving the existing wording are welcome. I did change "structural anomalies" to "delayed responses"; hope this helps. Eubulides (talk) 08:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This so-called “refrigerator mother” theory was popularized by Bruno Bettelheim and inflicted a tremendous sense of guilt on the already traumatized mothers, who were unjustly blamed for their child’s condition. Bettelheim’s specious theory was discredited by Dr. Bernard Rimland , who wrote the landmark 1964 book Infantile Autism: The Syndrome and Its Implications for a Neural Theory of Behavior . In this book, which is credited for bringing autism out of the dark ages, Rimland concluded that based on his research, autism was caused by biochemical and physiological factors, including genetics. Not content with merely explaining the origins of autism, Dr. Rimland devoted his life to finding out everything he could about this mysterious condition, including prevention, treatment and possible contributing factors . In 1965, Rimland , known as “the father of modern autism” (and the father of an autistic son himself ), formed the Autism Society of America, the largest parent–based organization in the country, with over 100,000 members. In 1967, he founded the Autism Research Institute, which was (and is) devoted to scientifically based research on treatments, causes and prevention.
I see now that the same editor has reinserted nearly the same text (except this time with a misspelling), without discussion. This text is unsourced and is not neutral. Please discuss changes like this, instead of simply reinserting them.
I just now checked, and Wolff 2004 (doi:10.1007/s00787-004-0363-5) does not even mention Rimland, which suggests that this newly added treatment of Rimland does not pass the WP:WEIGHT test either.
For now I have merely tagged the new addition, but really, the whole thing should get reverted. We should be using reliable sources like Wolff on the history of autism.
This set of edits introduced the following text in what appears to be a new section Controversy:
"Some critics have argued that true autism is still rare and Autism Spectrum Disorder is not an epidemic but rather a result of a purposeful broadening of diagnostic criteria for poorly misunderstood and widely varying delays. Educators have noted a reclassification of children who were previously placed in special education for reasons varying from expressive receptive language delay to some level of retardation. Some critics question whether high functioning ASD (such as Aspergers) is in fact a disorder since children with high functioning ASD generally go on to live normal lives and are often more intelligent than average. Some have argued that the diagnostic criteria for autism are meant to reflect an extremeness of impairment in social skills and communication as well as behavioral repetitions and that poorly trained evaluators have loosely applied these diagnostics. It's also been argued that some highly intelligent and normal children follow an abnormal development curve exhibiting "autistic like" symptoms such as lack of communication, aloofness and intense interests early on. It is difficult to offer a prognosis for late talkers who are often put on the radar for autism and it is likely that the diagnostic rates and criteria for autism disorders will remain controversial."
This text is entirely unsourced, which runs afoul of WP:V. Also, it repeats material that is already in Autism; for example, its first point largely duplicates the following text in Autism #Epidemiology:
"This increase is largely attributable to changes in diagnostic practices, referral patterns, availability of services, age at diagnosis, and public awareness, though unidentified contributing environmental risk factors cannot be ruled out. It is unknown whether autism's prevalence increased during the same period ..."
Cause of Autism: When a child has much more male hormones than females hormones, or he only has male hormones and no female hormones, he will become autistic. The behaviors of the autistic children show that this is true. Our behaviors are affected by the hormones that we possess. Madonnacheung (talk) 03:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that that theory, while a worthy one, needs to compete with dozens if not hundreds of similar theories in the area. See, for example, the November 2008 issue of the Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, which has eight articles in that area. We don't have space to cover all this work in Autism, and as per WP:MEDRS we need to rely on high-quality reviews published in refereed scientific and medical journals to help us decide what to put in. Maybe in a few years, if and when the connectome theory of autism becomes more notable and reviewed, we could put it in then. In the meantime I suggest adding a line or two to Heritability of autism somewhere, but it should refer to a refereed medical journal article and not to a prepublication disseration. Eubulides (talk) 20:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
poor writing style
This article is poorly written. I have perfect test scores and a Ph.D., yet I was bothered by the overly technical content. Perhaps the main problem was the lack of explanatory info at the beginning, before diving deep. Also having all the PDD stuff at the beginning, when it is really an aside for the subject of the article. Am amazed that this article passed as an FA. NOT a pleasure to read. TCO (talk) 05:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Specific suggestions for wording improvements would be welcome. Or if that's too much work, perhaps you could identify exactly which phrases were hard to understand? Editors who have seen this stuff over and over again often don't see problems like that, and a fresh pair of eyes can be quite helpful. Eubulides (talk) 06:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let me think about it. There were some ideas given in my post. I have heard there is a general problem with engaging readability on wikipedia. Part of this is just good style. But also has to do with technical content especially at front of the article. Also have seen some pattern on math technical articles of them being too technical, for e general (even smart general audience). I could probably struggle through and read it. but seriously, don't think it met normal standard of engagingness for a popular (encyclopedia is popular) article. suggest more of the basic so what content at front and technical issues (where it fits in DSM etc.) further back. sorry if this is not more specific, but it is honest (and I think correct) criticism from a reader (not writer) POV. TCO (talk) 02:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am approaching this as an interested and intelligent reader. Saw a refernce to the term on the web and wanted to read more to know the basics as I have heard the term but don't really understand it. Would be better served by some other webpage than wikipedia given the non-interesting prose here. I mean look at the article on Hottentots or Matthew c Perry. Tehy read and give you some interesting window to something. Autism is INTERESTING, too. But you don't get that from this article, the way it's written now. I am not an expert on good writing, I just recognize the difference as a reader. Perhaps bringing someone in like this would help: User:Tony1. He's kind of more of a Elements of Style pusher, but he also might have some thoughts on making the article suitable and INTERESTING to a general audience. Some random thoughts:
Look at the first sentence. Do you need all the "and" constructions (those tend to be boring to the reader and loquacious and overcautious (you get the idea?) when it is just citing multiple similar things like "sticks and twigs".
Still on first sentence, are all these tough technical terms needed at the beginning. I mean I'm trying to get the basic concept here. Not read clinical or psychospeak ("impaired social interaction"). The captioned picture on the side was much better however.
Entire intro section seems too long. Making it shorter might force you to be more crisp about (basically) what autism is. The caveats and disputed areas and more formal definitions could be kept in the meat of the article.
Move classification deeper into the article. At least after characteristics, which is the most important thing to learn first for someone with limited knowledge and who may not bother reading the whole article. This is not a review article for a journal.
Hope the above helps. I really have a point here, but am struggling to get it accross as I'm not a super communication expert either. I do appreciate that you are a volunteer, not a paid writer. Same with me. TCO (talk) 07:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tony1 had a go at the article, but maybe we can have him look at it again.
We've just now reworded the 1st sentence to break it up a bit. Alas, the "multiple similar things" are all subtly different, and are worded carefully to match the official diagnostic criteria (which are the cited source here) so I don't easily see how we can get rid of all the "and"s.
Likewise for the "impairs social interaction". The cited source says "qualitative impairment in social interaction, as manifested by at least two of the following:" and we've summarized that as "impairs social interaction". I don't offhand see how to simplify this further.
The intro is a bit shorter now.
I movedClassification to be after Characteristics.
The first sentence feels awkward in that it says that autism "impairs social development" and "produces" repetitive behavior. Whether the source says it or not, it seems more correct to say that autism is characterized by these behaviors, similar to the lead of the Down's syndrome article. II | (t - c) 01:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The third sentence is unclear. What signs are referred to? Impaired communication and repetitive behavior are not present in the milder forms? Also, I removed communication since that is a synonym for social interaction, and restrictive is vague and highly similar to repetitive. II | (t - c) 01:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The link used for the intro sources now leads to an assessment. I don't know where the DSM-IV online is. What the link does have on autism supports my above point: it doesn't say autism causes anything, but says it has essential features which manifest [2]. II | (t - c) 01:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments. Basically, the "signs" referred to are any and all of the signs. If any core sign is not present, then it's not autism proper, but it may still be ASD. "Communication" is not a synonym for "social interaction", at least, not in DSM-ese. Communication is primarily about language skills, whereas social interaction is more often non-lingual. "Restrictive" is not the same as "repetitive": the former means a narrow range of interests, the latter means doing the same thing over and over again. The link was indeed broken but Google Books URLs are not reliable, so I fixed it to point to the more-stable CDC. Eubulides (talk) 08:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
New epidemiology analysis concludes that increased autism rates not due to broader diagnosis
CAN YOU PLEASE INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH UNDER THE SCREENING SECTION. THE PETITION IS TO HAVE ALL CHILDREN ASSESSED OF A MULTITUDE OF SPECIFIC LEARNING DIFFICULTIES
"On the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to consider the need for legislation to provide a standardised assessment of all schoolchildren by the age of 8 which will inform parents, pupils and educators as to whether the pupil is at risk of developing a specific learning difficulty."
The petition was contrary to the other view that children should not be identified with Autism as it was felt that a significant proportion of these children who were Autistic and not identified did not have appropriate learning strategies in place and that it was the right of the child to know if they had a learning difficulty that would inhibit their education.
Fitzgerald's theory is possibly true, but it's a serious charge and the source is not reliable enough to be worth mentioning here. Here's Fitzgerald's allegation (I've omitted his footnotes):
'Hans Asperger was the first pioneer of autism research, and not Leo Kanner. I have no doubt that Leo Kanner was aware of Hans Asperger's 1938 paper because he mentions that "since 1938, there have come to our attention a number of children.... ' Sadly he did not mention Hans Asperger's name. This is plagiarism, Asperger and Kanner spoke the same language and came from the same city, Vienna. During World War II, Leo Kanner had much contact with medical refugees from his native country. Nonattribution or in this case plagiarism is always sad and is usually exposed even if it takes 60 years, as in this case.' Fitzgerald M (2008). "Autism: Asperger's Syndrome—history and first descriptions". In Rausch JL, Johnson ME, Casanova MF (ed.). Asperger's Disorder. Informa. pp. 1–6. ISBN0849383609.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link)
My Google Books preview stopped just before most of Fitzgerald's references section, but the likely citations are probably Asperger 1938 (Wien Klin Wochenschr51: 1314–7), Kanner 1942 (Nerv Child2: 217–50), and Lyons & Fitzgerald 2007 (PMID 17922179). The last source, coauthored by Fitzgerald, presents the evidence in question without once saying the word "plagiarism", and it also gives a plausible explanation for why it might not have been plagiarism.
Fitzgerald is noted for making poorly-supported claims about historical figures. For example, he's speculated that Mozart had autism, which goes significantly beyond what the evidence says; see Ashoori and Jankovic 2008 (PMID 18644922), which briefly discusses the Mozart-had-autism theory along with the Mozart-had-Tourette's theory.
My guess is that Fitzgerald's charge of plagiarism didn't make it into the peer-reviewed journal because the reviewers objected, so he stuck it into a book with lower editorial standards. As such, the source is not reliable enough to be mentioned here.
I concur that Fitzgerald's self-publications aren't reliable enough for publication here; peer reviewed sources are preferable for such a claim. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In Fitzgerald's defense, the accusation was published in a book (ISBN 0849383609) that Fitzgerald himself didn't edit. However, there's no sign of peer review in the book. At any rate, it's a less reliable venue than the Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, which published Lyons & Fitzgerald 2007 (PMID 17922179), the source I find far more reliable. Eubulides (talk) 00:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The term 'overwhelming' should not be used to describe evidence
In the section 'Causes', a statement reads "there is overwhelming scientific evidence showing no causal association between the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine and autism." The term 'overwhelming' generally refers to an emotional reaction to some event. I wonder if in the case of this article the editor upon seeing the evidence, was so overwhelmed that she had to stop reading the articles and lie down in order to regain her faculties. But even so, anyone's emotional response to some piece of evidence is epistemologically irrelevant to the evidence being considered. Rather, evidence is a thing that exists outside of the observer and can be assessed by the observer on what justificatory qualities are attached to the evidentiary object.
--Phiborjam (talk) 07:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment shows a lack of familiarity with the way many people talk about psychology research (or other) findings. In the U.S. at least, "overwhelming evidence" is a common phrase indicating that the weight of the evidence (objectively considered) is highly unbalanced, and that the weaker side's arguments are "overwhelmed" by a far greater or more compelling body of evidence in favor of a different conclusion.
Nevertheless, the sentence in the article was strangely phrased, though not for the reason you gave. I have changed the phrasing. Thank you for calling attention to it. -DoctorW08:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This topic has come up before; see Talk:Autism/Archive 9 #MMR remark. Briefly, the cited source (Doja & Roberts 2006, PMID 17168158) supports the word "overwhelming", by saying in its abstract, "In particular, some have suggested an association between the Measles-Mumps-Rubella vaccine and autism. Our literature review found very few studies supporting this theory, with the overwhelming majority showing no causal association between the Measles-Mumps-Rubella vaccine and autism." I reworded the sentence in question to match the source better, as it had strayed a bit with the recent editing. Eubulides (talk) 08:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking about translating the article into Russian..
..because the article is both highly-visited and very short in RuWiki.. ..and I was wondering if the latest English version is "the best to choose", or maybe there were some disputed changes lately, and I better take some "more stable" version, because the FA status was assigned rather long ago in WikiTime.. --CopperKettle09:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the changes since FA have been to add reliable sources that were published after FA status. It's fairly stable except for that. Eubulides (talk) 15:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The first one is close to ICD Q00-Q07 (as far as I understand), the second refers to ICD10 F84. Is it O.K.? I've asked at the Neurodevelopmental disorder if the article fits into ICD Q list. Or maybe the latter article is vague and overlaps several ICD sections.. --CopperKettle12:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments. Q00–Q07 refers to congenital deformations, which can easily be seen as physical anomalies without fancy new hardware. In contrast, ICD10 F84 refers to disorders that historically were diagnosed solely by behaviors, and where no physical anomalies could be detected. Nowadays of course with fMRI and all, these divisions are blurring together. Autism is a developmental disorder of the neurons in the brain; this is currently summarized as "brain development disorder" because the lead sentence needs to be short, but perhaps you're right that the phrase causes confusion with the physically obvious disorders, so maybe we should change it to "neurodevelopmental disorder" (ugh) or "disorder of neural development" (double ugh). (I say "ugh" because many readers won't know what those phrases mean.) What do you think? Eubulides (talk) 18:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its individual symptoms occur in the general population and appear not to associate highly, without a sharp line separating pathological severity from common traits.[14]
- seems a little clumsy: "separating severity from traits" - maybe better would be "separating pathological from common traits" or somehow otherwise? Because severity has a bit of "adjective" role (don't know the exact phraseology of linguists), trait is a "noun".. Maybe: "separating pathological manifestation from common traits"? Best regards, --CopperKettle16:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Autistic toddlers have more striking social deviance; for example, they have less eye contact and anticipatory postures and are more likely to communicate by manipulating another person's hand.[16]
- meaning they mainly tug adults by hand to get what they want? (Translating word-for-word could expand the meaning to something akin to sign language, so I want to say in the Russian version: "they manipulate the other's hand to get something they want\indicate something they want"). --CopperKettle12:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's what it means. Some nonverbal low-functioning autistic people use a sort of baby-like "hand and mouth" communication. I think it's somewhat akin to what you'll find if you ever try to talk to a young child who doesn't speak English. If they want you to do something theyll just bring you right over to wherever you have to be to do it. It doesnt necessarily indicate that they can't understand language spoken to them, just that they can't use it themselves. SoapTalk/Contributions13:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"desynchronization of vocal patterns with the caregiver"
I don't really know for sure what they mean there, but I am pretty sure that 'vocal patterns' in this sense isn't something related to autism; a child speech pathologist would be able to tell if there is some very specific narrow meaning assigned to that phrase in this context. Otherwise I would assume it just means that the rhythm of speech, i.e. phonology, does not match that of the child's parents as would that of a normal baby. Normal babies can perceive human speech with a different part of the brain than what they use to process other sounds; I remember reading in Donna Williams' autobiography that human speech was just another kind of sound and she found it difficult both to speak clearly and to hear clearly when she was very young. --- Plodoppum, away-from-home account of Soap
That terminology is derived via the cited review from the primary source, Trevarthen & Daniel 2005 (PMID 16182487), which analyzed videos of a 11-month-old child later diagnosed with autism. The child had problems developing a social rhythm when interacting with her father. I made this change to try to make it a bit clearer. Eubulides (talk) 23:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
March issue of Br J Hosp Med
The current issue of the British Journal of Hospital Medicine contains the following articles, which may be of interest, though I lack ready access to them:
Jordan R (2009). "Medicalization of autism spectrum disorders: implications for services". Br J Hosp Med. 70 (3): 128–129. PMID19273998.
Lord C, Bishop SL (2009). "The autism spectrum: definitions, assessment and diagnoses". Br J Hosp Med. 70 (3): 132–135. PMID19274000.
Deeley Q, Murphy D (2009). "Pathophysiology of autism: evidence from brain imaging:". Br J Hosp Med. 70 (3): 138–142. PMID19274001.
Aldred CR, Green J (2009). "Early social communication interventions for autism". Br J Hosp Med. 70 (3): 143–145. PMID19274002.
I have twice removed the image of Kanner from the article, as I am not seeing how it is necessary in any way. I have no doubt that Kanner is significant to the history of autism (I profess I don't actually know much about the topic) but I am not seeing how knowing what he looks like aids the reader in any way. Per the non-free content criteria point 8, "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.". Could it please be explained how not knowing what Kanner looks like would be detrimental to understanding? J Milburn (talk) 21:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you didn't mention that it was a non-free image in your edit summary and I didn't realise that was the case. Looking at the policy, I agree with you - this image isn't necessary for the reader to understand the topic. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. It's important for non-expert readers to know that autism was discovered by, and to some extent is a construct of, human psychologists, and that autism is not determined by abstract scientific principles or by God or whatever. It's essential for the article to put a human face on the history of autism research, and the image helps to significantly and easily increase readers' understanding of this part of the topic. I will take a look at rewording the caption to make this point clearer. As for Asperger's photo, the same point applies to it as well. I don't see a consensus at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 March 11 #http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Asperger_kl2.jpg to remove that image, and it's premature to be removing the use of the image here while discussion is still ongoing there. Eubulides (talk) 23:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that people need to see an actual face in order to comprehend that a human being is behind something. If you say "/something/ was discovered by /So-and-So/," and a reader wants to see a picture, all you need is a link to So-and-So's biography article, and there they'll have it. Easy as that. Tim D (talk) 23:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's very rare for anyone to need to see an actual face for anything. For example, Andre Malraux doesn't discuss Malraux's face, so what is that fair-use image of Malraux doing there in the lead for that article? The standard "people need to see an actual face" is not the standard that Wikipedia uses for fair-use images, and we . Eubulides (talk) 23:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the difference from the point of view of Wikipedia policy. The policy doesn't say that a fair-use picture of Joe Schmoe can be used only in an article named Joe Schmoe; it says that the picture can be used in an article Whatsit only if the picture significantly affects reader understanding of Whatsit. The photos of Kanner and of Asperger significantly affect reader understanding of the history and classification of autism. Eubulides (talk) 08:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Asperger seems to me to be much more important to the history of autism than Kanner. Is that an accurate summary Eubulides? Or are they of equal importance? Tim Vickers (talk) 23:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources rate them about equally as pioneers. For example, please see:
This source gives an edge to Asperger, but I imagine it wouldn't be hard to find another source which would do the same for Kanner. Eubulides (talk) 23:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. While neither image is necessary for a reader to understand the topic, I suppose it is a valid argument that showing the "discoverers" of autism is encyclopedic content and could "significantly increase" the reader's understanding of the topic - I think we can all agree that these are obviously not purely decorative images. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What make you sure "The photograph was published in 1955 without a copyright notice." I don't see that information explicitly on the full record or marc record (found with this Google search) but I'm not familiar with that system. Why does the NLM feel the need to watermark their image if it is public domain? Colin°Talk13:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that problem seems to be sorted. The image of Asperger is currently at IfD. For future instances, the general practice is that a single non-free image of a deceased person in their biography is acceptable, as knowing what the person looks like is important for a full understanding of the person. Knowing what the scientists look like is not necessary for a full understanding of a disease, or, if it was, then the appearance of the scientist would be discussed in the text. J Milburn (talk) 12:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Connection to wireless?
Perhaps we should add to the possible causes something about wireless technologies. This is a hypothesis recorded in PubMed (PMID 14962625).
Is Autism genetic? Wireless has been correlated to DNA/genetic effects (European REFLEX study/Lai study) and infertility (some studies in PubMed)
Is Autism environmental? Andrew Goldsworthy explains the mechanism by which electromagnetic fields can weaken tight-junction barriers (through removing calcium ions from membrane surfaces, enabling cell membrane leakage), thus increasing our susceptibility to environmental toxins/allergies. (http://www.der-mast-muss-weg.de/pdf/studien/04Goldsworthy_Thesaloniki.pdf)
Is Autism related to neurotransmitters and neurodevelopment? The calcium efflux effect may also have effects on neurotransmitters since Calcium plays a significant role in the inter-neuron synapse in the release of neurotransmitters?
So directly or indirectly, wireless technologies may play a role in autism. And interestingly, autism rates start soaring around the time wireless becomes more popular (well, but it is debated whether that is just due to public recognition)
Pensees (talk) 23:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Best as I can tell, the hypothesis is based simply on a correlation, and the recovery study leapt directly from heavy metals to autism. Until there is actually some good empirical evidence out there, new hypotheses like this should probably stay out of this article. Tim D (talk) 23:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This hypothesis that cell phones (or other wireless devices) cause autism has been around for quite some time. It hasn't been supported by any reliable sources (certainly the ones listed above are not reliable enough to make the cut for Autism). I suggest adding a new section to Causes of autism, which has lower standards for sources. A good place to put it would be between the section Causes of autism #Paracetamol and Causes of autism #Rain; this is because the latter section discuss the theory that watching television causes autism. Eubulides (talk) 23:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If EMFs play a part in mercury exposures (as also suggested by PMID 18819554), that might help explain why heavy metal - autism link is so difficult to prove -- if it depends upon another parameter (whether powerline EMFs or wireless EMFs), levels of which may be different in different research environments. A book of testimonies of people whose health is sensitive to wireless technologies suggests a connection to their dental appointments and mercury amalgam (http://www.feb.se/FEB/electro-hypersensitivity-book.pdf). Pensees (talk) 00:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to mention also, award-winning medical and science journalist Blake Levitt had also posited a connection between EMF and autism in her book Electromagnetic Fields. This is probably the book that really grabbed my attention about the issue. Pensees (talk) 00:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is, however, not a peer reviewed piece of writing (from what I can gather from Ms. Levitt's website). It seems the above are weak, and, that much of the ideas presented here are either synthesis or OR. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A recent edit removed a reference to a new image Image:Asperger-Vienna-clinic.jpeg with the comment "The consensus at the FFD page was clear- an image of Asperger is not required. This image is not being used in a different way." Two points:
"This image is not being used in a different way" Good point, and I moved the image to Autism #History, the section where it should have been put in the first place. The image now directly illustrates the following discussion of the historical period when Asperger co-discovered autism.
"The word autism first took its modern sense in 1938 when Hans Asperger of the Vienna University Hospital adopted Bleuler's terminology autistic psychopaths in a lecture in German about child psychology. Asperger was investigating a form of ASD now known as Asperger syndrome, though for various reasons it was not widely recognized as a separate diagnosis until 1981."
"The consensus at the FFD page was clear- an image of Asperger is not required" The consensus at the FFD page was that a simple portrait of Asperger's face, made well after his discovery of autism, was not required. The new image is quite different: it shows Asperger at work, conducting a psychological test of a child, in the clinic where he discovered autism, near the time when the discovery was made. As such, it is a historical photograph that is directly relevant to the article's discussion.
A followup comment at User talk:Eubulides #Asperger image argued that adding the new image was "bordering on disruptive". That is certainly not the intent. The intent is to illustrate the discovery of autism, which is an important topic within Autism. We know of no free image on the topic, and given the topic's historical nature it will be impossible to generate a free image on our own.
Eubulides (talk) 18:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And now you're just wikilawyering. Sure, the fact Asperger discovered or named or developed or whatever is significant, but why is how he looked at the time? What do you actually see the image as illustrating, that needs to be illustrated? That sentence works perfectly fine without illustration- it's not like you read it and think "hmmm, I wonder what Asperger looked like when he was doing experiments?". J Milburn (talk) 18:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"And now you're just wikilawyering" This is not wikilawyering: it is improving the encyclopedia. The old image was objected to because it was just a portrait of Asperger's face, which is not that relevant to Autism. The new image is quite different: it's a portrait of Asperger in action, doing what he was doing when he discovered autism, a topic highly relevant to Autism.
"why is how he looked at the time?" The image is not just one of Asperger's personal appearance: it is an image of Asperger testing a child, and it gives the reader an easy-to-see impression of how psychological research was conducted back then. Asperger's white coat indicates that he was using a medical approach (as opposed to other approaches, common at the time); his one-on-one encounter with the child shows how data were collected.
"That sentence works perfectly fine without illustration" No it doesn't. It doesn't convey any of the points mentioned in the previous bullet.
I see now that you removed the image again, with the comment " New image is strikingly similar to the one just deleted." No, actually, the new image is not at all "strikingly similar". They are quite different. Are you sure you're looking at the correct images? Here they are again:
New image: File:Asperger-Vienna-clinic.jpegHans Asperger conducting a psychological test on a child at the Vienna University Pediatric Clinic around 1940. Asperger introduced the modern sense of the word autism in 1938.
The two images are strikingly different. One is just Asperger's face, as an older man, long after the research in question. The other one is contemporaneous, and focuses on the autism research, not on Asperger per se.
I have the impression that this image was removed from Autism without a clear understanding of autism, the history of autism, or why Asperger's involvement was so important. Please take the time to read the article and its historical sources to get a better feeling for what's important (and what's not) about the history of autism. Here are some good sources, which Autism already cites:
I'd honestly love to read about Asperger, Asperger's syndrome and autism, I'm sure eventually I will (a book I read skirted on it recently, but ended up going in a different direction- I digress). However, I do not need to be an expert on the subject to contribute here- just as I do not expect you to be an expert on Wikipedia policy. If you believe that this image is necessary, can you honestly say you would have added it if the previous image had been deleted? Perhaps they are not actually strikingly similar, but when an image of Asperger is removed, adding an image of Asperger with a child and claiming it is unrelated to the previous discussion is stretching it a little. However, I am happy to treat this as unrelated to the previous discussion, provided you do not add the image to the article until there is a clear consensus to do so (as explained in the non-free content crtieria, the burden of proof to demonstrate the image necessary lies with you). As such, let us now look at the merits of this image. What does it show? Asperger, in a white coat, talking to a child. Why does there need to be an image of that? The photo itself is not famous, and nor is the appearance of what it shows significant- perhaps his methodology is, but methodology should be discussed rather than illustrated. In what way does this really increase the readers' understanding in the way that text alone would not? J Milburn (talk) 19:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"can you honestly say you would have added it..." Absolutely. Autism needs images about its two pioneering researchers, just as Tourette syndrome needs an image of Tourette and Schizophrenia needs an image of Bleuler. When I first helped to edit Autism to reach FA status, one of the important parts of that editing was to add images relevant to autism, including images for Asperger and Kanner, the two research pioneers for autism. Had the old Asperger image not been available, I would have searched for and found this one (or perhaps another non-free one).
"Perhaps they are not actually strikingly similar" Agreed. They are quite different. Thank you for conceding the point.
"claiming it is unrelated to the previous discussion" No such claim was made.
"The photo itself is not famous" There is no requirement in Wikipedia policy that the photo itself must be famous.
"What does it show? Asperger, in a white coat, talking to a child." No, it shows Asperger testing a child. The distinction is important. Asperger is not just idly talking to a child: he is doing psychological testing, which was essential for his research that discovered autism.
"nor is the appearance of what it shows significant" Yes, the appearance is significant. It expresses details about the early discovery of autism that are not in the text and which would not be easily movable to the text. Please see the above bullet with the text "The image is not just one of Asperger's personal appearance".
"methodology should be discussed rather than illustrated" Not when an illustration is a more convenient and immediately-accessible way of conveying the relevant information. Furthermore, in this particular case, the illustration conveys relevant information that we have no other reliable source for.
No, you're just plain wrong here. The article does not need images about its two pioneering researchers, as the IfD clearly indicated. A free image of a researcher would be nice, but showing what the researchers looked like does not help the reader in any way. If there is no reliable source, it can hardly be considered significant, and if the information is conveyable by text, it should be conveyed by text, even if the image is more convenient. It would be more convenient to use images from news websites than use loosely related images or have no illustrations at all- we do not use images merely to be "convenient". This image is not in any way improving the article, and has clearly been added only because the previous image was deleted. Please simply explain to me what the image is illustrating, and why it is imperative that that is illustrated. Vague mentions of white coats aren't really working for me. J Milburn (talk) 20:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this new image is not about "showing what the researchers looked like"; it is about showing how autism was discovered.
"If there is no reliable source" There is a reliable source: the image itself. It is this image that Frith's book Autism and Asperger Syndrome (ISBN 052138608X; a reliable source) uses to illustrate how early research was done. Frith's book doesn't use text to say that children were tested one-on-one at tables by men with white coats, and it doesn't need to use text to say it; it uses the photo. Autism can and should do the same.
"we do not use images merely to be 'convenient'" Fair enough; I struck the word "convenient" from my previous comment. The rest of the point still stands, however. Images are highly-useful ways of conveying relevant information that cannot easily be conveyed in any other way.
"Please simply explain to me what the image is illustrating, and why it is imperative that that is illustrated." Briefly, the image shows how autism was discovered. It is important to illustrate (and not merely describe) historical events in autism.
Given the above discussion, it appears that an impossibly high standard is being asked for in this particular case. I don't know of any article in Wikipedia that would meet the standard that it must be "imperative that that is illustrated". Every single Wikipedia article that uses a non-free image can obviously be rewritten to not use the image, without violating Wikipedia policy, so it is never imperative to use a non-free image.
There is no need to illustrate the research. Yes, others do, but we have much stricter rules, and no doubt they discussed the matter for longer than a couple of paragraphs. An impossibly high standard is not being asked for- you're just realising how unneeded this image actually is. Compare to the use of paintings in visual arts articles, or compare to the use of old photos in articles about demolished buildings. A picture of Asperger doing his research is not needed- the article was fine without it. It does not tie to the text- at no point does the reader think "hmm, I wonder what Asperger looked like when he was doing his research?" Compare with my above examples- when reading the article, the reader is certainly going to think "I wonder what X looked like", and that's why the image is needed. J Milburn (talk) 21:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A 3rd opinion on this matter was requested. I should state first that I am an inclusionist with regards to Wikipedia; More content, especially when it is of varying types, is one of my highest goals with regards to Wikipedia. I personally believe that the picture would fit well with the article. It is small (and therefore easy on bandwidth for the end-user), it provides an illustration of both Asperger as well as the climate in which his studies were conducted. It does not provide a direct benefit, but it pays out in spades with regards to it's secondary and tertiary value, both by engaging the reader (Images demarcate places of interest, and their summaries often work well to summarize the section they are surrounded by). Images like this have precedent; would you argue that the picture of Leslie Lamport is unnecessary in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_computing , or that the picture of Risperdal in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophrenia are unnecessary? True, they add no direct benefit, but with 1 look at the picture of the pills, I realized that the section was there because the section was about medications. Then, reading the caption, I learned that Risperdone (commonly called Risperdal) is a common treatment for Schizophrenia. Leslie Lamport... Well, I can't really argue for his inclusion in the article on second thought; it doesn't exactly add much. But I still feel that this picture would add more to this article than it would take away. 24.205.53.113 (talk) 01:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
